Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota
Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Microbiome 2016-06, Vol.4 (1), p.29-29, Article 29 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 29 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 29 |
container_title | Microbiome |
container_volume | 4 |
creator | Lauder, Abigail P Roche, Aoife M Sherrill-Mix, Scott Bailey, Aubrey Laughlin, Alice L Bittinger, Kyle Leite, Rita Elovitz, Michal A Parry, Samuel Bushman, Frederic D |
description | Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women.
We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls.
We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4917942</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A469288066</galeid><sourcerecordid>A469288066</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-f2e9e412c643bcf0df88430ed2507dc54f8192e3d67ebf594a7c6dbc8e4015413</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkltvFSEQxzdGY5vaD-CLIfFFH7ZyW5Z9MWlOrDZpYuLlmbAwnNLswgq7rX77sp5j7TFCGG6_-QPDVNVLgs8IkeJd5pgIWRdTWktr9qQ6pph3NRVEPn00PqpOc77BpXSEt1w-r45oy5hsqTyu7jZxnHTyOQYUHZoGbSDMGmU9TgNkdOfna2RiWRp90LMv2DpLccjIxgKEOKMpxVtvAcFqgwHkYkIaWZ9nH8z8V3X0JsXex1m_qJ45PWQ43fcn1feLD982n-qrzx8vN-dXtWmonGtHoQNOqBGc9cZh66TkDIOlDW6tabiTpKPArGihd03HdWuE7Y2EEp2GE3ZSvd_pTks_gl2vkfSgpuRHnX6pqL063An-Wm3jreIdaTtOi8CbvUCKPxbIsxp9NjAMOkBcsipU1wgimq6gr_9Bb-KSQnmeIhJjSRn-LbintnoA5YOL5VyziqpzLjoqJRaiUGf_oUq1UIIYAzhf1g8c3h44rL8EP-etXnJWl1-_HLJkx5bfyDmBe4gHwWpNLrVLLlWMWpNLseLz6nEgHzz-pBK7Bw8uyss</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1800823042</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Lauder, Abigail P ; Roche, Aoife M ; Sherrill-Mix, Scott ; Bailey, Aubrey ; Laughlin, Alice L ; Bittinger, Kyle ; Leite, Rita ; Elovitz, Michal A ; Parry, Samuel ; Bushman, Frederic D</creator><creatorcontrib>Lauder, Abigail P ; Roche, Aoife M ; Sherrill-Mix, Scott ; Bailey, Aubrey ; Laughlin, Alice L ; Bittinger, Kyle ; Leite, Rita ; Elovitz, Michal A ; Parry, Samuel ; Bushman, Frederic D</creatorcontrib><description>Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women.
We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls.
We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2049-2618</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2049-2618</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27338728</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Bacteria ; Comparative analysis ; Female ; Gene Dosage ; Genes ; Humans ; Microbiota ; Microbiota (Symbiotic organisms) ; Mouth - microbiology ; Placenta - microbiology ; Pregnancy ; RNA ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - analysis ; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - standards ; Sequence Analysis, DNA ; Specimen Handling - standards</subject><ispartof>Microbiome, 2016-06, Vol.4 (1), p.29-29, Article 29</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright BioMed Central 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-f2e9e412c643bcf0df88430ed2507dc54f8192e3d67ebf594a7c6dbc8e4015413</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-f2e9e412c643bcf0df88430ed2507dc54f8192e3d67ebf594a7c6dbc8e4015413</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917942/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917942/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27338728$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lauder, Abigail P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Aoife M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrill-Mix, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Aubrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laughlin, Alice L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bittinger, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leite, Rita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elovitz, Michal A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parry, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bushman, Frederic D</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota</title><title>Microbiome</title><addtitle>Microbiome</addtitle><description>Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women.
We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls.
We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification.</description><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gene Dosage</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Microbiota</subject><subject>Microbiota (Symbiotic organisms)</subject><subject>Mouth - microbiology</subject><subject>Placenta - microbiology</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>RNA</subject><subject>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - analysis</subject><subject>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - standards</subject><subject>Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><subject>Specimen Handling - standards</subject><issn>2049-2618</issn><issn>2049-2618</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNptkltvFSEQxzdGY5vaD-CLIfFFH7ZyW5Z9MWlOrDZpYuLlmbAwnNLswgq7rX77sp5j7TFCGG6_-QPDVNVLgs8IkeJd5pgIWRdTWktr9qQ6pph3NRVEPn00PqpOc77BpXSEt1w-r45oy5hsqTyu7jZxnHTyOQYUHZoGbSDMGmU9TgNkdOfna2RiWRp90LMv2DpLccjIxgKEOKMpxVtvAcFqgwHkYkIaWZ9nH8z8V3X0JsXex1m_qJ45PWQ43fcn1feLD982n-qrzx8vN-dXtWmonGtHoQNOqBGc9cZh66TkDIOlDW6tabiTpKPArGihd03HdWuE7Y2EEp2GE3ZSvd_pTks_gl2vkfSgpuRHnX6pqL063An-Wm3jreIdaTtOi8CbvUCKPxbIsxp9NjAMOkBcsipU1wgimq6gr_9Bb-KSQnmeIhJjSRn-LbintnoA5YOL5VyziqpzLjoqJRaiUGf_oUq1UIIYAzhf1g8c3h44rL8EP-etXnJWl1-_HLJkx5bfyDmBe4gHwWpNLrVLLlWMWpNLseLz6nEgHzz-pBK7Bw8uyss</recordid><startdate>20160623</startdate><enddate>20160623</enddate><creator>Lauder, Abigail P</creator><creator>Roche, Aoife M</creator><creator>Sherrill-Mix, Scott</creator><creator>Bailey, Aubrey</creator><creator>Laughlin, Alice L</creator><creator>Bittinger, Kyle</creator><creator>Leite, Rita</creator><creator>Elovitz, Michal A</creator><creator>Parry, Samuel</creator><creator>Bushman, Frederic D</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160623</creationdate><title>Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota</title><author>Lauder, Abigail P ; Roche, Aoife M ; Sherrill-Mix, Scott ; Bailey, Aubrey ; Laughlin, Alice L ; Bittinger, Kyle ; Leite, Rita ; Elovitz, Michal A ; Parry, Samuel ; Bushman, Frederic D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c528t-f2e9e412c643bcf0df88430ed2507dc54f8192e3d67ebf594a7c6dbc8e4015413</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gene Dosage</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Microbiota</topic><topic>Microbiota (Symbiotic organisms)</topic><topic>Mouth - microbiology</topic><topic>Placenta - microbiology</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>RNA</topic><topic>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - analysis</topic><topic>RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - standards</topic><topic>Sequence Analysis, DNA</topic><topic>Specimen Handling - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lauder, Abigail P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roche, Aoife M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sherrill-Mix, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Aubrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laughlin, Alice L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bittinger, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leite, Rita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elovitz, Michal A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parry, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bushman, Frederic D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Microbiome</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lauder, Abigail P</au><au>Roche, Aoife M</au><au>Sherrill-Mix, Scott</au><au>Bailey, Aubrey</au><au>Laughlin, Alice L</au><au>Bittinger, Kyle</au><au>Leite, Rita</au><au>Elovitz, Michal A</au><au>Parry, Samuel</au><au>Bushman, Frederic D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota</atitle><jtitle>Microbiome</jtitle><addtitle>Microbiome</addtitle><date>2016-06-23</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>29</epage><pages>29-29</pages><artnum>29</artnum><issn>2049-2618</issn><eissn>2049-2618</eissn><abstract>Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women.
We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls.
We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>27338728</pmid><doi>10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2049-2618 |
ispartof | Microbiome, 2016-06, Vol.4 (1), p.29-29, Article 29 |
issn | 2049-2618 2049-2618 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4917942 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; SpringerLink Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Bacteria Comparative analysis Female Gene Dosage Genes Humans Microbiota Microbiota (Symbiotic organisms) Mouth - microbiology Placenta - microbiology Pregnancy RNA RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - analysis RNA, Ribosomal, 16S - standards Sequence Analysis, DNA Specimen Handling - standards |
title | Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T07%3A58%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20placenta%20samples%20with%20contamination%20controls%20does%20not%20provide%20evidence%20for%20a%20distinct%20placenta%20microbiota&rft.jtitle=Microbiome&rft.au=Lauder,%20Abigail%20P&rft.date=2016-06-23&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=29&rft.pages=29-29&rft.artnum=29&rft.issn=2049-2618&rft.eissn=2049-2618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s40168-016-0172-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA469288066%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1800823042&rft_id=info:pmid/27338728&rft_galeid=A469288066&rfr_iscdi=true |